i agree, but don't think Congress can do it. it's the Supreme Court that has rendered it untouchable, matter of absolute immunity. only the Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment can undo that. the next Dem Congress much urgently reform the Court.

* must (grrrr.)

I think we’ll have to build new institutions, and use regulation to kneecap bad ones. Engagement factories like Twitter/Facebook should be impossible to run: sites running an algorithm outside of a few safe harbors, like reverse chronological from user-selected feeds, should be liable as publishers.

I think we need to try new epistemological institutions, from diverse public media to citizens’ assemblies, to construct authority that can win broad credibility. I don’t have an answer, but as a public we’ve been much too laissez-faire.

yeah. the pardon power is a nightmare now. it was bad to render it unilateral to begin with. it’s been made infinitely worse by the immunity decision, which grants absolute immunity for pardons, renders them unreviewable by courts even when they’re alleged to be an element of a crime. 1/

fixing the founders’ error requires an amendment. but fixing the Court’s error just requires a better Court. /fin

the word "moderation" hides a lot. pre-Trump, US institutions were tilted toward a center that, as you say, was really just a center-right status quo, neoliberal economics + social liberalism. 1/

but that has never been the center of US public opinion, which holds preferences that are quite social-democratic (though Americans don't recognize or understand that label). 2/

approval voting rewards voters near that popular center, not near the fake center elites defined during the 1980-2015 era. for a bit more on this, here's me… drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/03/28/h... /fin

Senate rebalancing is hard (it’d take two Constitutional amendments, one to get rid of the line prohibiting amending equal suffrage of the states). But approval voting would tilt the Senate towards moderation. Every state is purple, except within a narrow margin. 1/

DOJ independence requires reforming or persuading the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment). it’s the Court that’s delivering tyranny laundered as a “unitary executive”. 2/

but the actual Constitution is very clear on giving Congress roles in structuring the executive branch. all it takes is a Supreme Court that recognizes Congress’ ability to structure offices with a degree of independence from the President, as was the status quo until quite recently. 3/

money out of politics, like DOJ independence, is most immediately another Court issue. Citizens United is obviously bad law, and in general we need to roll back the idea that entities the rich can make and fund have rights like natural people. 4/

a bit less immediately, the only way really to get zillionaires out of politics is not to have them. an act of Congress could restore FDR’s reasonable rate structure (with inflation adjusted brackets), and impose a wealth tax that would force billionaires to distribute their wealth quickly. 5/

Congress has the power to restructure the Court. if it plays hardball, it can strip the Court if jurisdiction over its restructuring, so say term limits can’t be struck down. 6/

i’m a bit less comfortable with term limits per se than restructuring the Court entirely to make terms of particular justices matter less, or perhaps make them become emeritus with reduced roles after a term. here are some of my suggestions: www.interfluidity.com/v2/7964.html 7/

repealing laws, codifying ethics, DC statehood, all available to Congress any day of the week. 8/

i’m not sure what “security independence” means? /fin